Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 29 December 2008

WikiProject Palestine is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Start by adding your name to the list of members at WikiProject Palestine. Ahlan wa Sahlan! (Welcome!)

The current Palestine Collaboration of the Month is • 2018–2019 Gaza border protests •

George Victor Browning

Hmm good question, i'm not too sure why I removed that part. Possibly because it sounded odd in the context it was being used. I have since reinstated the said sentence so it now reads:

Bishop Browning was born in Brighton, England on September 28 1942. His family were dairy farmers in Sussex. He attended Ardingly College and Lewes County Grammar School, before moving to Australia in 1960.

He initially worked as a jackeroo and stud groom, and then studied at St John's Theological College, Morpeth, where he obtained a Licentiate in Theology with first class honours. He was made deacon in 1966 and ordained priest in 1967.

Appologies. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The bit of info fits better now, the way you've reinstated it. No need to apologize! You've improved the piece. — Writegeist (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hudson Hornet

Thanks for adding the reference in the Hudson Hornet article for the quote that I used to help introduce the section about the car's NASCAR fame. I was not finished working on it, but had to take a break. As you can see, there are many more things that need to be added within this section, as well as to the entire article. Carry on! — CZmarlin (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ford Mustang

Hi, I have noticed you are a contributor to the Ford Mustang article, you might want to read the comment I left on the talk page and let me know if you are interested.--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Ford mustang AV8ER, after leaving that message on the ford mustang page I found the Ford Mustang variants article and found there is a segment regarding the AV8ER however there is no picture associated with it (here is the exact part here. I think it would be perfect for that but I do think it would be good on the ford mustang page also. One thing though I have never uploaded a picture to the commons. Can you briefly explain to me how it works? or can I email it to you?--Theoneintraining (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Theoneintraining (incidentally I have a son who, also inspired by The Matrix, adopted Neo's name). I think you might find it interesting to upload the image yourself. After you've done one you you'll know how to do more as and when you want. You'll get all the help you need here: Commons:First steps/Upload form. It's easy once you get into it. Any problems, I'll be happy to help out. Let's keep your email idea in reserve, at least until you've had a go. Is this OK with you? — Writegeist (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course no problems, thanks for the information I will have a read now and let you know when it is up. To be honest I really do want to know the whole uploading image part on here. Considering I have been a Wikipedian for well over a year now it is kind of pathetic that I have not done it before. and oh yeah I love the matrix I hope you have seen those films before.--Theoneintraining (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I done it, it is now in commons here is the link to the picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Ford_mustang_AV8ER.jpg thanks for your help--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! And also for your perseverance in getting it into the Mustang Variants article. I hope we'll see more of your contributions here and there on WP now. — Writegeist (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Writegeist.--Theoneintraining (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anon

Yeah, he's provokable. Best response is to ignore him.--Loodog (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems this WP article is tailor-made for him. — Writegeist (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin

I replied.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for replying to your reply there before I replied to you here. No discourtesy intended! — Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you have defied the consensus. Why didn't you just go ahead and do what you want in the first place, and save all of us the time and trouble of discussing and deciding the matter? I plan to revert tomorrow, if you don't do so sooner.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I rather assumed that you and some others were capable of objective judgement. I'm disappointed that, in the event, you are enforcing a consensus of subjective views about which picture makes a candidate for vice-president look "hot" etc., while disregarding the more weighty rational discussion that opposes them; and also that you trumpet the consensus for no better reason than that it coincides with your own subjective view.

And I'm disappointed that I ever got it into my head that you uphold the core values of WP over the bigotry of personal prejudice. But it takes all sorts. Personally of course I'm pleased with any outcome that does a disservice to the seriously dangerous Palin cause. But when I peer out from under the brim of my WP hat, a lousy-quality photo of the candidate looks to be a poor show so far as serving the best interests of WP readers is concerned. Kind regards, Writegeist (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "hot" business was humor. I obtained two of the photos in question, and I'm glad you liked one of them. The other will be replaced soon enough, as soon as a better one is available. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed. This whole storm in a teacup is WP as Monty Python. :~) Writegeist (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for weighing in on the Talk: Sarah Palin issue of retaining the commentary from the AP and CNN about her doing interviews. Dave Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. I appreciate the note. Writegeist (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent Yeahbuttal !

Never heard anybody else use that term before. Now I'll have me some hotdish before bed...Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Yeahbuttal" is delicious. (I shall plagiarise it.) Not sure about the hotdish, though. That "binding ingredient" sounds a little scary. Does Dave Collect partake of hotdish too? Does the binding ingredient contribute to the intellectual rigor that you both so conscientiously exercise on the Palin stuff? I find it difficult to maintain cool neutrality. — Writegeist (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on Palin

But the problems continue. Someone has now removed all the anti-bridge content. See talk page.GreekParadise (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What some so-called intellectual's won't do to silence the common man...:>)..I knew it wouldn't fly long at Sarah but I expected longer than 5 Minutes. Sadly, I am confident that the slurs will not stop. It may be their final gasp. I read some articles about Mccain's feelings about Asians after your mention. Interesting! Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor that removed it from Sara has removed it from McCain. Can you visit his talk and give some support (I left him a message). It was only 50 years ago that Obama would have had to give McCain his seat on the bus. Maybe this editor is too young to know that.--Buster7 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was in the habit of referring to Asians as "gooks" and when he was called on it he back-pedalled, claiming that he meant "only" those who had tortured him. But as it's an epithet for an entire race, i.e. a racist epithet, it doesn't cease to be racist just because it's leveled at a specific group of the race in question. Like so many of his party McCain is a dyed-in-the-(white) wool racist.

Please can you give me a diff for your McCain "I'm gonna whip that uppity n—'s ass" edit that was removed? It's definitely a notable remark. I'll gladly leave a note for the editor who censored it. Writegeist (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, when exactly are you claiming that McCain said that? A search for the term "whip that uppity" yields one blog and three forum posts. You have to mind WP:BLP if you are going to continue editing here. If it was not a quote, then it was an uncivil remark which has no place here to begin with, and its removal was justified as such. »S0CO 02:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You both need to go back and read what I said....I never said that McCain used the term 'uppitty'. I said that that is what some wacko would hear McCain say. My point is this...when Carter said he would "whip his ass" when he was competing with Ted Kennedy, no one thought anything of it. Two white guys gonna duke it out. But, now it is different...Obama is the first American of color to have a serious shot at the White House and the term "whip his you-know-what" takes on a whole new meaning. Actually it rekindles a whole OLD meaning that all your censorship cannot deny. If my comment is not allowed at the McCain talk, the least I can do is move this conversation to the talk.--Buster7 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Buster7, I did not mean to give the impression to you, in my dialogue here with you, that I thought I was quoting you. I elaborated to show I understood the subtext and the context.

I was not directing my above comment at you, Buster7, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. But I should let you both know that I do not appreciate being accused of censorship, and neither do the other editors with whom you have found yourselves in opposition. Writegeist's straw-man misrepresentation of the quote (extrapolating "I'm gonna whip that uppity n____'s ass" from "after I whip his you-know-what") is indicative of the problem you are having: It is the use of such tactics and forceful, uncivil language which is damaging your case.

Writegeist, Thanks for the use of your talk page. My hope is that we can get to November 5th without a calamity.:')--Buster7 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There, and beyond. »S0CO 05:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

JcSoco, I have removed the schoolmarmish section of your contribution above. (Yup, now you know what it's like to be censored.) It's patronizing, threatening and uncivil. And anyway, you killed Kenny. You're a bastard.

Buster7, you're welcome. Thank you for drawing my attention to McCain's threat. - Writegeist (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Writegeist, I have made a serious error. Soco is not the editor that censored me. He deserves better treatment. All I can say is ..OOPPSS!!--Buster7 (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And I hold no grudge, so long as we're all willing to work cooperatively. And yes, I did kill Kenny... but then again, who hasn't? :) »S0CO 06:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage, eh? Cheer up, no bones broken! I expect you've apologized to the poor innocent. Anyway who was the censor, and has the edit been restored? If not, it should be. It's relevant to the article. Please give me the diff. Thanks! Writegeist (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive discussion about it right now on the McCain talk. Look it up. »S0CO 06:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Danke. Writegeist (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

JcSoco I have removed your schoolmarmification again. I may be wrong about "threatening" and "uncivil" but it's certainly patronizing. I don't want patronizing twaddle (well, except my own) on my talk page. Please don't take it personally. And the fact remains that, despite that cutesy lickle smiley, you're not fooling me for one nanosecond: you're still a Kenny-killing bastard. Writegeist (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I got here late. Who is Kenny?--Buster7 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh Buster7. You do know that when you've lost your innocence there's no getting it back? (And I really like your innocence, so it grieves me to take it away from you.) But anyway, here goes: Kenny keeps getting killed over here. SOCO is the bastard perp--he confessed on his user page. (It only took the threat of five minutes alone with VP candidate Madame Winkalotte discussing the merits of the Pevear/Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace. Fact: Madame W once stepped into her yard in Wasilla and saw Tolstoy's wife shoveling snow in Moscow.)

He also likes girls with big fat titties. I mean Kenny does. I can't speak for SOCO. Anyway, there it is. I'm sorry. Forgive me! I know you will, because you're a good person. Or you were, until you lost your innocence. I guess it's all part of an Intelligent Design. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize for both of us, Buster - you have officially been corrupted. Now there's no going back. :) »S0CO 00:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

O you evil denizens of the dark ways. I shall never be corrupted. I shall remain pure as the driven......what's that your drinking?--Buster7 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead links don't mean material is uncited

Dead links don't mean material is uncited. A reference to a news source, with an article title and a date, is sufficient; not everything must be found on the internet. In the future, please just remove the dead link. Jayjg 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You added live lnk per invitation. Well done. Writegeist (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but I was pointing out that a live link wasn't required. Citing a publication, title, and date is enough. When a link dies you can add the {{dead link}} template, or, in this case, simply remove the dead link, but you shouldn't delete the citation entirely. Jayjg 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference to a news source with article and date is useless where the source is a website and the article is no long available there. I forgot the wayback machine. Well done. Writegeist (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Here is the discussion I referenced. I'm not sure if there were others -- you might want to peruse the talk page archives. Coemgenus 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. — Writegeist (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post at talk, thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks

No matter what you think of me, I still thank you for your input. Collect (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an addiction...

Worst habit I've ever tried to kick! Fcreid (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ArmyDinnerJacket... :-D Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Please be careful not to exceed 3 reverts per day at John McCain, per WP:3RR. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanker. See User talk:Ferrylodge#3RR. — Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wanker

Thank you for the photograph you so thoughtfully posted above, which demonstrated your wanking action. It's probably better kept to yourself, so I have removed it. — Writegeist (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Sara

From what? Is this an act by the evil CABAL I keep hearing about??? See my note at MastCell's talk. This should NOT be swept under the rug after the 4th. It really IS a serious act of aggrrrression (i can't even spell the word) against ALL the editors envolved at SP...BTW, I am uncomfortable with the hand gesture to the right of this entry.--Buster7 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Good note at MastCell. I dropped one on L'Aquatique. I'd welcome any info re. your previous dealings with ?her?. She seems inept (putting it as kindly as I can). Oh, and thanks for reminding me -- I removed the rather strange self-portrait that "No-no-no-I-don't-work-for-them-oh-no-no-no-I'm-just-a-volunteer-here-really-ya-gotta-believe-me" Ferrylodge posted. — Writegeist (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gripe

This is a warning. Please do not attack other edits, as you did at WP:ANI. You should consider removing the recent statement you made there. Grsz 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a cut-and-paste from your editor review page:

...you were extremely uncivil and rude. if i were an admin, i would have banned you immediately. please do not be rude to other wikipedians. i am *extremely* surprised you haven't been banned yet. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So I don't need to tell you what you can do with your officious and hypocritical "warning". Apart from that, thank you for your visit to my talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If only you bothered getting a background. That was an user angry because his 3RR report was declined. The point still remains. Grsz 01:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. His point still remains. As does the hypocrisy of yours. I shall delete any further posts from you here. Goodbye. — Writegeist (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Pinochet/McCain

I see that you are operating under the misconception that Allende was murdered.

No. I'm not. You are fundamentally mistaken. — Writegeist (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in reliable sources ( not the fables that the "periodista" Gabriel Garcia Marquez printed), then I would be happy to provide you with them. This happens to be a subject that I am very familiar with, and I would be delighted to steer you right. Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Aahhh. I understand if you were just saying that he was murdered. If I was fundamentally mistaken in believing that you actually believed that he was murdered, then I do apologize. I understand that we often say things that we don't believe for effect. Again, my apologies.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I said he was murdered because fundamentally I thought he was. When I researched more recent sources I found that fundamentally the story of the suicide is likely true. Which fundamentally I acknowledged in a subsequent post. Seems you did not read it. No problem. — Writegeist (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

I wish to draw your attention to my post here. This applies not only to the Sarah Palin page, but any other article related to the US elections. Please don't continue this behaviour. Risker (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Block Party

Block parties really get rocking when WP admins publicly spank editors for transgressions such as referring to other editors as tag teamsters, per the example below. — Writegeist (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Risker (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Appeal against the spanking? Bollocks! It's a rite of Wikipassage! I am sooo turned on! Risker's hot! Check out this awesome stub she created! — Writegeist (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

you are avandal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.251.177 (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, that's so sweet! Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I use en.wiktionary.org. But thats very thoughtful. tjx 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Yowza!

What a trip! My first block with an admin! Yowza! This chick blocks like there's no tomorrow! — The erstwhile Block Virgin, Writegeist (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesson learned

You have presented the Administration with an obvious solution for a thorny situation. Rather than place an Article (Sara Palin, for instance) under full protection and be besieged by a fire-strorm of protest, they can just block individual editors that present "a problem"...:>)...Buster7 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Also a revealing instance of admin bias--vide the conspicuous absence of any admin response to the numerous ad hominem attacks on those who most strongly oppose Conservative POV-pushing in you-know-which articles.

It appears therefore that one of the tasks of a WP admin is to protect tag teams. And that another is to facilitate and protect the sanitizing of certain BLPs. No wonder the excellent Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in this month's issue of The Atlantic, laments: "...students today have a great deal of knowledge. This knowledge is wrong, because it comes from Misplaced Pages, but they know more wrong things than you did in high school." I had thought that this sad state affairs was accidental; that it arose from the wholesome anarchy at the root of the Wiki concept. I now realize that where certain articles are concerned the partisan disinformation is deliberate.

Indeed, lessons learned. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW Buster7, sorry to see you getting beaten up again by the tag team. My advice (worth nothing, natch!) is to tread very, very carefully if you don't want to join me in the brig! The good news--just in--is that Obama has taken Ohio. Writegeist (talk) 02:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

O Happy Day. I hope the news has reached you in solitary confinement. Mr Obama is our new president. So....grab an oar and start rowing! The great ship USS United States is dead in the water....:>)--Buster7 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait just a minute. I don't mind rowing a little bit, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna climb some God forsaken MountAIN!!!! The last time I tried to climb the steps at the Lincoln Memorial I only made it part way before collapsing into a huddled mass of OLD! And did anyone help? Of course not. I had to tumble down the steps till I reached solid ground. See you @ Sara's Place!--Buster7 (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. Or on the same steps, or something. But no problem. Sarah says we can borrow the gubernatorial helicopter if it hasn't sold on eBay by then. — Writegeist (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I enjoyed your prose, too, and the time at Sara's Place. I just had to get away from "Collecting". I guess I won't be going for a ride in the "helio-copter" but I do hope we meet up down the line somewhere. I'll enjoy your rousing style of play from the sidelines. Stay out of the dog-house and prison. They both stink. --Buster7 (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across your edit re:Democrat Party and your use of the word "prick". It is a clear and concise example of the evolution of a word over 80 years. It has a dramatic and powerful, one might say turgid, meaning that was not forseen nearly a Century ago. A perfect example of how a creative editor multi-uses words. --Buster7 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, that turgid little "prick". Well, we do what we can with the tools we find here. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

...... the following is an interesting example of what some editors get away with...for shame!......

Ha, yeah. Kind of struck me as curious why one and not another. I mean, "Your mother's like a bowling ball: she gets fingered, chucked in the gutter and still comes back for more!" Yeah, I can see that. But it's the equivalent of saying, "Your mom's like a vacuum cleaner: sucks, blows, and gets laid in the closet!" is simply a common part of the language....Anonymous editor...name upon request....--Buster7 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation for John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Medication...

For what it's worth, I was referring to 4Ls (who added the nonsense about Palin not knowing Africa was a continent without any qualifying context) and Collect (who had "tuned up" the article a bit to remove a lot of previous contentious material). Both were operating against the consensus that had been reached during the past ten weeks. I really don't care whether you believe I wasn't referring to you or that I didn't know you were "banned" for some period, but both are the truth. Fcreid (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. And I'm sure you'll understand how the apparently coincidental "ban" references could have looked like a personal dig under the circumstances, particularly as neither 4L nor Collect had been blocked. No harm done. Dr. Writegeist prescribes 8g Rozerem half an hour before bedtime. — Writegeist (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I'm prescribed such, but I've yet to see Lincoln and the talking beaver. Take it easy. Fcreid (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

       *                                     THE TEXT BARNSTAR
      / \                     Which is an insufficient reward in so many ways,
     /   \              granted for the reams of text laid down by the honored recipient
- - -     - - -           as a bulwark against WP rule-barrages during the Great Siege  
 \           /              When the Great Siege started, we were all a lot younger
  \         /       Ergo, it is fashioned after a pre-alpha version of a Space Invaders invader.
   |  / \  |               And the bestower doesn't know where to access barnstars. 
   |/     \|                  Anarchangel (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... seriously. I know I get wound up on SP talk, but there's no offense intended at you. I have tried to make the established WP processes work, but at times it appears those processes themselves are fundamentally flawed. I've spent my life "fixing" broken processes, and it's frustrating for me not to exericse that kind of control. I know you've had your suspicions of me since I arrived, but what you see is really what you get. My interests in WP began solely in academic pursuit on the technical mechanics of managing a wiki, as I've been asked to integrate Mediawiki into a "different" type of environment for some of my customers. I got sucked into the debate far too much for my own good in the end. As embarrassed as I am to admit, this election interested me so little that I was actually away from home on election day and did not even vote. That's cynicism on my part from seeing too many elections with the same net results, but I really do believe the American process (despite its obvious and not-so-obvious flaws) is the best we humans can do under the circumstances. Fcreid (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they are flawed. As any process is bound to be. (The endless approach to a perfection that's never attained. Except, perhaps, in the perfect absurdity of a Philippe Starck lemon-squeezer.) And naturally we all get wound up on political article talk pages. (Apposite, too, the double meaning of "wound"?) I tend to agree about the American system, although the Norwegian, for example, seems to create a happier and less polarized society. And friends in and from Eastern bloc countries sometimes bemoan the loss of the job- and home-security that they, er, enjoyed under Communism. (Conveniently overlooking the fear of the knock at the door in the night.) But even Chomsky cites America as having the greatest freedom of speech. (However he also names Bolivia as the country with the best system of government. Go figure. Paul Theroux thinks Bolivia is about the most miserable place on earth.) — Writegeist (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky Penny

		A Lucky Penny
		In the spirit of "See a penny, pick it up. All the day you'll have good luck", this penny is offered to Editor Writegeist. Humorous, Intelligent, and Real in the face of constrictive Mediocrity.--Buster7 (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dem kind words, and back at you good Sir. With knobs on. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bedford/ANI

I posted about the personal attacks and edit-warring over on ANI. Otherwise, it's not worth it to get all mucked up in it. I hope it resolves itself - I thought the satire was funny. There was also a sign that read "Why can Bristol Palin get married, why can't my Mom?" That's also Whoopi Goldberg in the photo, next to the woman in the red coat. I think signs that lack any mean spirit like those show she has taken a hold in the public imagination, even when the issue is not related to her. I laughed. A lot of others did, too. --David Shankbone 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good move, the little twerp fell silent. Hope he didn't choke on the stars and bars. Excellent that the picture stayed — the light touch is welcome. Also glad to find your blog. — Writegeist (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Journalists and Morons...

There are probably better words to describe him, but moron still works. Anyone who cannot see beyond the short-term tactical gains of this divisive approach to the long-term persecution it causes is not-too-bright and doesn't deserve praise or a job on a major network. Imagine, instead, if a commentator had shown video of Obama being entertained in an African tribal ritual or a gay man videotaped in a public display of affection with his lover, and punctuated that video with "do we really want this in the White House?" Discrimination is wrong, and inciting ignorant people to discriminate using an out-of-context shock video is the pinnacle of such wrong.

But of course I still love you. If only we could harness that mind of yours for good. :) Fcreid (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A Void or avoid

I need some advice on what to do. See Talk:Sarah Palin and the discussion re; JFKennedy. An editor, around Nov 14th, makes mention of my little farewell speech. Nice touch...so I went to re-read it--- lo and behold--it was gone from the index list for Archive 40 ...Boo-hoo for me. But, then I thought, "why?". As it is now, a "new" editor, visiting Saint Sarah's for the first time, will have no idea where to look. ManicBrit mentions it but it is not easily found. If I had a suspicious mind, which I don't, I would suspect an "evil cabal", but, as we all know, wikipedia cabals are just a figment of our over-zealous imaginations. My question is...Can I revert in the archive? Will I go to Prison for subverting the actions of a hitherto "not-involved-in-anything-Sarah" Administrator? As an "ex-con" I thought you might know! (:>) See .--Buster7 (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

D'accord, as we say in the more, er, outré (with an acute accent) reaches of Wikiland: the deletion makes a nonsense of the reference to your comments in the Saint Sarah archives (or, as they are universally known among the tribes of the Palinites, "The Dead See (Russia From Your Back Yard) Scrolls"). And of course I agree with you that the deletion can have nothing to do with fictitous evil cabals in general, much less fictitious evil cabals of any particular little pricks...

Speaking as an old lag wot's done bird in Wikiwood Scrubs I'd say there's a good chance of you being cast into the dungeons if you revert in the Scrolls, assuming that's possible (?). How about bringing it up on the talk page of the Wikicop wot done you up like a kipper by deleting your actually rather excellent guide to what was going on in the Scrolls? Or is this a really dumb and futile move? Meanwhile I'll investigate his or her bona fides (faithful bones). Thank you for my lucky penny, BTW. I was delighted and really rather proud to discover it even though I felt an undeserving wretch. I've stopped feeling her now. Anyway, it's remiss of me not to have acknowledged it. (The lucky penny.) I was waiting for something witty to come to mind and could only manage twitty. (So what's new.) Thank you! — Writegeist (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Neat solution! — Writegeist (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference...

...between intellectual and thoughtful critque, and plain, blind hatred. I saw your user page. Very... discomforing. No, not because I'm American and you have issues with my country (where do you live by the way? Not my business and I'm not really asking you...), but it's because of how it seems your issues cross the border from honest, thoughtful analysis into simple flavor-of-the-day, it's stylish US bashing (and nice touch throwing in Anti-Israel stuff in there too, I suppose you're one of those who believe they control us or something...) Well I digress, I simply wanted to say your user page is... sad. For you. Jersey John (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for visiting from Conservapedia, New Jersey. Your syntax and spelling are entertaining and your rose-tinted spectacles are very pretty. Are lenses with a tinge of red compulsory for Conservapedians? I do hope you found your way back. — Writegeist (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my CP account is blocked because they got tired of me telling them how messed up they are, so you lose on that point. Also, I believe I only made one typo, where I neglected the "t" in "discomforting." As for the syntax, it was perfectly fine. Also, my spectacles are anything but rose-tinted. They are tinted with reality and moderation rather than extreme disdain, such a yours seem to be. Thank you for responding! Jersey John (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thank you for making a return visit. (Irresistible, huh? Hope you enjoyed the latest developments.) How pointless to sign up at CP just to tell them "how messed up they are". One typo, eh? You continue to entertain. I look forward to your next visit from Noo Joisy. Thank you for your continuing support. — Writegeist (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, that stereotypical "Joisey" accent is only from Trenton and points north. I am from what we here refer to as "south Jersey" where we have no discernable accent of our own. Mostly because we are more influenced by Philadelphia, PA rather than "New Yawk." Jersey John (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also in regards to the whole CP thing, to be more accurate I had created an account there a litle over a year ago, though I have been blocked for a while now as my contributions and views were deemed "too liberal."Jersey John (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Thanks for that note ;)

You certainly have a way with words.. and a humorous flair too. When you speak French, though, I simply don't get it, being an uneducated slob. Sacre bleu! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but the French is just to cover up my own uneducatedness. (See?) And slobbishness. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My comments in the Obama discussion

Writegeist...I can only conclude by your comments in my talk page, that you either totally misunderstand what I am saying, or you miss the backhanded subtleties of some insisting that Obama be refured to as “mixed race” as opposed to “Black or “African American”. Cosand (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK but it's best not to accuse other editors of racism and bigotry (personal attacks are verboten in Wikiworld) unless you have irrefutable proof; whereas what you are offering is your personal interpretation of remarks that (I think, and WP policy dictates) should be taken at face value, i.e. as unprejudiced, until and unless their contributors prove otherwise. (And for all you know, my racism-detection antennae are more sensitively attuned than yours, and for good reason.) WP:AGF is a key tenet here. The admirable User:Wikidemon calmed me down at WP:ANI. Sincere thanks for the reply, and apologies if you feel I overreacted. (It's the first time I've ever taken anything to ANI.) I must say that I'm glad to realize that your own sensitivity to racism and bigotry is authentic, for all that I urge caution in tarring others with their painfully bristly brushes. Rest assured, no hard feelings. — Writegeist (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

Don't do this kind of stuff . And if you're going to remove PA's from talk, don't just silently remove text ; replace it with or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Which "kind of stuff"? I have several contribs there. Be specific.

I didn't remove the PAs silently (please note, plurals don't take apostrophes) — I was humming Sit on My Face (and tell me that you love me) at the time. Also I noted the removal in the summary. Doing exactly what a sysop has done to me in the past. You people need to agree on correct procedures. What does the M stand for? — Writegeist (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that the comments removed were mine, and for what it's worth, I actually appreciated that. I was frustrated by the discussion with another editor, and Writegeist was kind enough to recognize that and to remind me to maintain a modicum of decorum. In my continuing quest for knowledge, can someone tell me what a "PA" is? Guessing from context, it personal attack? Fcreid (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it stood for "Public Address" (voice amplification system). I guess I'm showing my advanced age. --Buster7 (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that'll be what I call the Tannoy. (I fear my age is even more advanced!) Surely PA stands for Personal Assistant? When it's not being Pennsylvania? So it would be possible to hear over the PA of a PA on a PA in PA.— Writegeist (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Supra II

• File:Leffe 900px.jpg Cheers! Supra's engine is Dead for the Day...--Buster7 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yum! Chateau Comeuppance! Either this is a particularly fine vintage or the occasion it celebrates has imparted an especially spicy flavour. Thank you. And I think we have Saint Brendan the Bold to thank, at least in part, for this happy day? The quiet patience of a saint illuminating a manuscript; the tenacity of a terrier hunting a rat. — Writegeist (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Imported from your Talk, B7, and mildly edited:

Perhaps that submission was made under the wrong rule? The old banger's performance is outside the rule's narrow parameters. I used to think that given enough gas it would eventually bump into something large and unforgiving; now I worry about running out of gas. (Don't we all.) It can also be seen here, where it continues to bend (OK ignore) all highway laws (worth filing as evidence?).

And now it wants R-E-S-P-E-C-T, seemingly unaware that it has to be E-A-R-N-E-D...

— Writegeist (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see "The rest of the story" at my talk.--Buster7 (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Seen and appreciated. :~) — Writegeist (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Palin

Section reserved for KillerChihuahua's offerings and analysis thereof

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly explain. The section added to SP Talk, which Threeafterthree deleted, was not using the page as a forum. It was proposing consideration of factual material for inclusion in the SP article. The London Review of Books material was by an author who is extremely distinguished, internationally recognized and widely respected (ditto the publication itself). It contains facts, or at least alleged facts, that are worthy of discussion in relation to improving the SP BLP. IMO your actions indicate undue haste, failure to grasp the full facts, and poor judgement. Oh, and the template's tone is not appropriate in this case -- I'm an experienced and responsible editor, as even a cursory check of my contrib history shows -- and I'll thank you to be more WP:CIVIL. Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I was offline for a bit doing Christmas eve with my family, and checked once before bed, and find you posted the above, and apparently deciding I was not quick enough on the response, have taken it hither and yon - ANI, my talk page, the article talk page... Patience much? I can tell you this, in response to a question you left on ANI: if you don't care for the post I left here, remove it. Its your talk page. Removal of posts on your talk page is virtually always allowed. KillerChihuahua 03:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the response. The post to your talk page was a courtesy which I thought wiki etiquette required. "Hither and yon"? My mentioning the ANI on SP Talk? Transparency. There's a host of people involved at SP and I thought they should know what action I had taken re. your record on an important issue relating to the article. Since abusing Raban's critique as "POV pushing essay crap" is indefensible, as is making a groundless personal attack on me as a "vandal", as is also threatening to block any editor for making a fully "legal" attempt to get Raban's highly relevant and RS piece discussed, I would doubtless have taken it to ANI anyway. As for the outcome there — brusquely decided, and without the courtesy of an explanation, by a 17 year-old who, on his own admission, apparently spends just about his entire life on WP — I have already said enough. (Too much.) — Writegeist (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The note on my talk page was a courtesy which is required by etiquette, and which I appreciate. The less than 2 hours to respond before you took your "tl;dr" (not my words, but damn appropriate) complaint to ANI was less than etiquette and less than common sense would allow. Did you bother to check my contribs to even see if I was actively editing before you ranted that I'd failed to reply to you?

Here is the thing, in a nutshell: SP is a battleground, far too often. Edit warring to keep a lengthy post which has unclear (to say the least) application for improving the article violates EW, which is a form of disruption. If you feel Rabin's book review has a place in the article - and I am sorry to say I find that highly unlikely, as it is a book review and hence almost certainly only useful for an article about the book - then say so. Like this:

• Rabin wrote a review(link) on (site or publication name), which I feel would add to section (yaddayadda). I suggest we add a sentence with the following content "Rabin stated in his review of Blah that Palin yadda yadda ".

The incredibly long and meandering post which was edit warred over, disrupting progress on the article, had nothing remotely of the sort. Edit warring about content on talk pages which is forum-like, and non-specific as to its application to the article, is indeed a blockable offense. Is this at all more comprehensible to you? Oh and the "crappy essay" was the original long post on the talk page, not the review. Apologies for the confusion. Mild apologies for use of the word "crap". KillerChihuahua 22:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "The less than 2 hours to respond before you took your 'tl;dr' (not my words, but damn appropriate) complaint to ANI was less than etiquette and less than common sense would allow.":

• Datestamp of my request for response: 19.02 24 December
• Datestamp of my post to ANI: 00.06 25 December

If the datestamps are correct your "less than 2 hours to respond" is crap (to use one of your favorite words) and you're 250% wrong. (My maths may also be 250% wrong, as I pride myself on maintaining a high level of innumeracy.)

2. "you ranted that I'd failed to reply to you": "Ranted"? Oh please. My heads-up on your talk page was nothing more than a scrupulously neutral statement of the facts:

• "Fyi, as you have not responded to my request for an explanation of your behaviour, I've taken it up at ANI. Happy Christmas."

3. "unclear (to say the least) application for improving the article": The contributor states:

• This essay presents a critical, but insightful and vigorous character sketch that I think should be incorporated into the article.

Proposed application: incorporation into the article. Misguided perhaps, but totally clear. Again, you’re just inventing stuff.

4. "The incredibly long and meandering post". Are we talking about the same post?

• This , is the subject under discussion.

"Incredibly long"?

• Intro: 22 words.
• Extract from source review: 203 words.

Not "incredibly" long by any stretch of the imagination. Again, you’re making things up.

• For comparison, your own post to which this is a reply: 286 words

"Meandering"? Specific points proposed for inclusion from the cited RS source:

• Palin’s stated financial agenda
• Her actual expenditures; six specific items listed

Hardly meandering.

5. "'crappy essay' was the original long post on the talk page, not the review." Let’s stick to the facts. The 203-word extract from the review accounts for all but a mere 22 of the words in the original post. While the extract from the review is kind of an essay, the contributor’s brief and to-the-point introductory reference to it very obviously isn't. Therefore, as the original post consists almost entirely of the quote from the review, the review is, in fact, what “crappy essay” refers to.

6. The name of the world-renowned author whose analysis you so charmingly describe as "crap": Raban. Not Rabin.

"Comprehensible"? Here’s what, if I have comprehended your words and actions correctly, I comprehend from this interaction with you:

• Untruths and distortions of facts. Dishonesty in the service of self-justification. Poor attention to detail. Incivility, aggression and hostility. Manipulative behaviour. Use of sysop status as a bullying tactic on the talk page of an article which you also edit. Etc. Why a sysop should behave like this is beyond my comprehension.

I’d like to know (1) who oversees sysops and (2) what procedures, if any, exist for holding sysops accountable for their actions? Thanks. — Writegeist (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take your word for it that I read the datestamps wrong and that you waited 4 hours before running to ANI ranting that I hadn't responded to you. My error I am sure. The rest seems to be just you still venting your anger and frustration, nitpicking more details, and shows no desire to find common ground nor to learn how to accomplish things here. Let me know if you ever get over your hatred of me, and want my help or advice. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"Well, I'll take your word for it that I read the datestamps wrong":

Take my word for it? How condescending. And what bullshit. My word was not you had misread the datestamps. Also, I quoted them verbatim. Clearly you can read.

And while we’re on the subject of the time interval: first you lied that it was two hours; when I called you on that, you lied that it was four. Yawn.

Now to your "ranting" accusations. First you accuse me of "ranting" on your talk page about the lack of response from you. Which I expose as a total fabrication. Now apparently I stand accused of "running to ANI ranting" about the same thing. (As if by repetition the lie can be made to stick—the tried-and-tested technique advocated by dear old Joe Goebbels! Oh, the nostalgia!) My post at ANI made no mention whatsoever of the fact that you hadn’t responded. Yet there it is again, the same discrediting lie, couched this time in the language of an archetypal liar, the school bully (as is rather your style, I’ve noticed).

Taking the trouble to address a sysop’s numerous flat-out lies, half-truths and smears is not "nitpicking", as you term it. A sysop who peddles fictions as facts to discredit another contributor is a threat to all contributors and, I should think, to numerous WP policies. Such an individual is hardly best qualified to police the behaviour of other bad-faith editors. And the behaviour of a sysop who, when exposed, shrugs off his/her lies, half-truths and smears as piddling trivia is contemptible.

Further, your aggressive and deceitful assertions are not confined to my talk page: here is an example of your attempt, at another user's talk page, to suppress discussion of notable, relevant and V material from an RS source, in this instance the London Review of Books, by misrepresenting it as a blog:

• Consider this a warning. Cease warring over the inclusion of that nonsense. Blog essays are not useful to us here on Misplaced Pages, (except sometimes on articles about notable blogs such as Daily Kos) and discussion of them here is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which drew the following reply (abbreviated here) from the user:

• I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog. I also think it's worth noting that at least one other admin did not find your block warning to be appropriate.

"Anger and frustration"? You flatter yourself. The abusive behaviour I've touched on here earns contempt—an altogether cooler customer whose home is the intellect, not the heart. As for your closing remark, the course I’ve chosen is probably more realistic and certainly less tedious, as it's the only 100 percent effective prophylactic against direct contact with you: avoidance of articles you're involved in.

On a lighter note, as a parting gift, some Hilaire Belloc:

Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,

It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes;

Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth,

Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,

Attempted to Believe Matilda:

The effort very nearly killed her.

Every time she shouted 'Fire!'

They only answered 'Little Liar!'

And therefore when her Aunt returned

Matilda, and the House, were burned.

Goodbye Madam! And the best of luck. — Writegeist (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a pity you have chosen to view my every action in the worst possible light and attributed malice to me which I do not have; however, it seems to be the case. I regret to inform you that I will not be leaving Misplaced Pages due to your hostility, assumption of bad faith, or even pasted poetry. I suggest you manage somehow to learn to live with that. KillerChihuahua 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As so many of your statements and actions are distinguished by bad faith, falsehood or factual distortion (as I have shown: six of your self-serving lies are already exposed here), it is not that I "have chosen to view" them "in the worst possible light". It's that by sheer weight of numbers they extinguish the least spark of a charitable light.

I note you deny everything, including malice. I leave the facts to speak for themselves.

And so to your odd "regretful" announcement that you "will not be leaving Misplaced Pages" etc., which smacks of the playground bully’s classic last resort—to the role of injured party—when challenged. Stay or go; go or stay. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. As I already told you, I decided to avoid the little pool of articles where you splash about. To me, the absence of one very small dog from the vast oceans elsewhere will be tantamount to it having sunk without trace.

I'll leave this section up for a day or two, to give you the opportunity to read it. Then I'll delete it.

Again (I’m an optimist), goodbyeeee! And please, that's not the same as "au revoir." — Writegeist (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I don't give a flying fart whether it was 2 hours or 4 hours. I thought it was about 2; you said No, I thought you'd said it was at least 4, now you say that's wrong too. I do not care. The precise number of hours does not matter; you're calling me a liar about something I merely estimated. More than two, less than six, close enough? This is trivia. You are fighting about anal-retentive nonsense. This is absurd in the extreme. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut. I thought I said, "Goodbyeee!" and not, "Au revoir, do call again and leave more crap."

Fear not, pop-eyed little pooch, your point was well taken. You hardly need to remind me that you don't give a "flying fart" about sticking to facts or veracity (although you're very free with low-level sharts here, I've noticed). Happily though, others do. So on second thoughts I'll keep this section—to exhibit, for the appreciation of my other visitors (fully house-trained!), the remarkable specimens produced by my little doggie friend. I shall call them my Little Mexican Doggy Whoppers.

So now you've changed your story of The Hours for the third time, eh? (Or is it fourth? Fifth? I seem to be losing count as you approach the limits of my pitifully deficient arithmetic.) If I, er, comprehend it correctly, the latest draft of The Hours has it that you originally "thought" five hours was "about" two hours. Interesting. And revealing. In fact you sniffily dismissed the interval as "less than 2 hours" (my emph.). Interesting and revealing because? Because the open-ended "about" tends to support a story of an innocent "estimate". But "less than" doesn't. "Less than" is specifically limited. Narrowed in focus, specific, it's more clearly a calculated (no pun intended) lie. It's well-known that most liars have trouble remembering which lie they told. Less well-known is the fact that their use of words, trivial though words seem to them, often gives them away. Freudian slips? Elementary, my dear Watson.

By the way there's a good book by Adventures In The Screen Trade author and screenwriter Bill Goldman called, I think, Which Lie Did I Tell? It's about Hollywood. Are you a Hollywood pooch? Sporting a diamond collar from Harry Winston and peeking out of a B-list celebrity's purse? If so I may be able to sell your crap on eBay, and I insist that you think of this section as your special little pooping place! (Gives a whole new meaning to "save your crap" doesn't it!) All I ask is that you do your business on the newspaper provided (a Murdoch publication, natch). Isn't it nice to make new friends? Au revoir, and do call again, you funny little thing! — Writegeist (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

About Nothing in Particular

"Bad Dog, Bad"...--Buster7 (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion at wp: ANI#another grumpy admin Request for Assistance regarding a matter in which you may be involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)